I see it as a matter of trying to move intoa nice neighborhood, where the people who already live there want to relegate you into a 'safe' spot (by their standards) so you're not too close to their doorstep.  If you drive down their street the cops come out and arrest you because you didn't follow their 'advice' on what you 'should' have done to not 'step on toes'.

aka - prejudice.  And THAT is blatant everywhere.

It's a player mechanic.  What can you do?

----
I play MMOs. I need a signature which is deep, thought provoking, and devours bandwidth with the voracity of rabid weasels. It is also, by nature, vaguely sad with a tinge of my obvious internal, unfathomable loneliness. Like this,   , but at 1.3megs packed into 2 by 6 inches. ANIMATED.

In a softball tournement, you don't get any special bonus in life for being the champion, you do it to test yourself and your team against others.

There doesn't have to be a super-shiny toy at the bottom of the beta outpost cereal box. But sure as long as the community has the idea that "I didn't want that outpost anyway" then they'll never be a good enough reason to strive for it.

All it takes is some leaders to step forward and say, "This is important." if you can take and hold an outpost then we'll respect you. This risk v reward is a bunch of krap. Maybe something is worth doing just because it's difficult.

M2S understands this game concept, and they want to be the best on the server. This new change with setting access to outposts is going to make it really really hard for corporations to beat M2S, since the attackers can't move in a force during off hours, they acutally don't have to have people at each outpost until the intrusions are scheduled.

Be sure to bookmark this post, when 3 months from now everyone is complaining about how m2s is too powerful again because everyone else thought outpost were worthless.

/end rant

... wait, this isn't 1986?

There's probably something wrong with it, more than 1 something.

I'm not trying to create the future, in fact I'm hoping that Corps look at it more as an incentive to get out there and get established, even if it's a little more work 'right now' then living on alpha, because sooner or later its just going to get harder - not easier.

Unless of course the rumors of beta being 'empty' are overstated, in which case congrats current owners!

Do you mean as a staging area for an attack?  Shh.. your giving away all the secrets

But, yes. There's also logins and moible TP's among other things. So it's certianly isn't impossible to remove someone from an outpost once they are settled in.

I'm just saying that this one strategy, of camping your target's outpost, won't be available. Being able to undock a couple of bots before the intrusion and work them down through attrition over the course of a week is much harder when you have to actually travel across the Island in some way to get there.

Maybe 'really really hard' was an overstatement .. just 'harder' maybe?

M2S is 'old school' I guess. If no one else wants the outpost, I'm sure M2S will just take them because they can.

The changes to intrusions and ownership/taxes may effect the strategy, which I'm just guessing at, but if it was me, I would definetly want to have ownership of the outposts when they go to denied access. It will make roaming and ninja mining more difficult, since the only safe place will be the public outpost, and putting a few combat bots there on off tz would make even that hard to use.

That's actually good to hear. Although I would like to see beta populated with Corps able to have some dominion over the land, if it was possible to completely shut down free-lance operations that would be bad.

Your trolling is weak Jack.

But yes, outpost-owners being able to lock-out people they don't like from their outpost will serve as a much better reason to own outposts then what we currently have now. Corps locked out of outposts will still be able to utilize Beta, but there won't be any corporation storages, private storages, mining charges and field can charges off the market, no easy place to dock & store bots, etc.

In short it will be sufficiently annoying to non-owner member population that the leadership will end up having to go after an outpost or risk losing the part of their members who actually want to be involved in territory control.

Yup that is correct. However, not all mining fields or farming fields are located conveniently in close proximity to Beta Terminals. What "lockouts" will achieve is push non-owners in two ways, either secure access to outposts through political agreements or wage war on the owning corporation to get their outpost.

Failure to do either will - as I wrote before - end up in the members who are interested in territory control leaving for other corporations that cater to their desires.

Example:
Large alliance gives one outpost to each member corporation and charges a weekly tax of minerals or NIC to each corporation. In turn any intrusion is protected by at least 50% of the entire alliance and with the new "Multi-loss Outpost Protection" suggested they will simply never lose an outpost.

This could be a balanced system but not as it's currently suggested.

Which should be the topic of discussion imo

Has nothing to do with the fact that protecting and surveying Nova would be much more difficult and costly, now would it?

It would promote pvp and increase the enjoyability of the game, period. New players with a substantial EP disadvantage and varying skill levels have NO chance against you right now unless they bring a colossal fleet (And even then the results would probably serve as a battle of alesia reenactment) and that is a contributing factor as to is why pvp is uncommon in the first place.

There are two scenarios for teleport lockout:

1. Corp that owns outpost can block others from jumping in. Stupid idea.

2. People can jump regardless of instability/PVP flag. Another idiotic idea. This would do nothing for PVP except promote griefing. PVP does not equate to whack-a-mole on teleports.